Gartner Survey: Consumers Don't Want Crippled CDs

robkill writes "According to GartnerG2, 77% of consumers believe they should be allowed to copy CD's for personal use in another device. 82% believe they should be allowed to make personal backup copies of CD's. Let's hope Senators Hollings and Berman are paying attention. More details can be found in this PC World article."

Comments

Hilary Rosen discovered this first hand

[night_flyer]

at a debate at the Oxford Union.

A brief but detailed summary can be found here: http://tirian.magd.ox.ac.uk/~nick/UnionDebate/

Re:Hilary Rosen discovered this first hand

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's the same link, but anchored for those too lazy to copy/paste:

http://tirian.magd.ox.ac.uk/~nick/UnionDebate/

Posting as AC to prove i'm not whoring karma ;-)

Re:Hilary Rosen discovered this first hand

[sketerpot]

IIRC, the people at that debate were involved with music more that normal people would be. This survey is of ordinary people, of the sort that the RIAA will pay attention to. The RIAA has mostly ignored the protests of Slashdot, no matter how vehement, but they are more likely to pay attention to this.

Re:Hilary Rosen discovered this first hand

[Didion Sprague]

Thanks.

This is indeed a far more interesting -- and potentially more controversial -- story than the original topic (a Gartner suvey? BFD. Why is this siginificant?)

I'm not sure why Slashdot has rejected all the submissions for this link, its pictures, and the overall debate information.

I'm actually surprised that Hilary participated. The single photograph shows Hilary as being (apparently) a bit sullen and -- perhaps -- in a hurry to depart the debate. (I'm not sure where the photographer gets the idea that she's reading the guy's shirt. She's standing next to him, yes, but it looks like she's concentrating on getting her shit together in her purse -- not reading the tall guy's shirt.)

Anyway, as much as I despise the RIAA's tactics lately, a tentative hats off to Hilary et al. for their participation.

I'd like to hear both sides of the story, though. I'd be interested to read an RIAA write-up of the debate. I suspect they think they scored many talking posts -- despite the vote loss.

Re:Hilary Rosen discovered this first hand

[chromatic]

I'm not sure why Slashdot has rejected all the submissions for this link, its pictures, and the overall debate information.

Slashdot ran this story about it on Friday.

Re:Hilary Rosen discovered this first hand

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry to tell you this, but the RIAA has shown it's intent to only listen to the music labels. Hell, they don't even listen to the Artists who create the music in the first place.

Re:Hilary Rosen discovered this first hand

[sirsnork]

Why?

They know people will still buy the CD's even if they can't be copied. Take for example DVD's when they were first released, how many slashdotters bought DVD players and discs before they could copy them? My bet would be a good portion of us, and we are the ones that go looking for ways to copy them. Do you think the average consumer even knows it's possible to copy a DVD disc?

So again I ask, why will the RIAA care what people want with regards to copying CD's. They know full well, even if CD's can't be copied they aren't going to lose sales. All those people that bought CD's before are still buying them now and will continue to do so in the future. With perhaps the exception of a few slashdotters we all still buy CD's, although we bitch and moan about it. Have a significant amount of us actually stopped buying CD's outright?

I doubt it. The RIAA also believes (rightly or wrongly), that at least a portion of those people pirating music will fork over for the CD's if they can't find the music they want.

Re:Hilary Rosen discovered this first hand

[sulli]

The difference is that lots of people have 5-10GB of MP3s now and want to rip every CD they buy, whether or not they share. Music is much easier to use once ripped; video isn't, at least to the same extent.

If a CD won't rip to MP3 I won't buy it, because I won't be able to listen to it the way I prefer to (on iPod). There are millions others like me.

Re:Hilary Rosen discovered this first hand

[isorox]

Have a significant amount of us actually stopped buying CD's outright?

Yes, thats what is for!

Re:Hilary Rosen discovered this first hand

[subsolar2]

And people bought CD's back when they couldn't copy them either.

The problem is people have always been able to copy audio. When CDs came out I would always copy them to tape so I could listen in my car. Before that I would always record my LPs to Cassette to keep the wear and tear on the albums down. People are used to theis and will not give it up unless the price of the "uncopyable" CD are significanly cheaper than regular CDs.

The movie industry has had a bit better luck at getting away with copy protection because there are not decades of copying to overcome. When VCRs first came out they were so expensive that few people could afford two, and even before macrovision it was hard to make a decent copy.

The movie and tv producers will run into trouble if they try to stop off the air copying because there is decades of history of people doing this. The only way they will be able to get away with it is by implementing it with pay-per-view content slowly to lul people into accepting it ... I.E. boiling the frog.

subsolar

Re:Hilary Rosen discovered this first hand

[CrystalFalcon]

So, now we need a couple of duplicate and triplicate stories to really underline the importance of it, in line with recent Slashdot tradition. :-)

The RIAA is doing better than I thought

[ErikRed1488]

I think it's sad that the RIAA already has 23% of the population convinced that they shouldn't be able to make a copy of a CD they own for personal use.

Re:The RIAA is doing better than I thought

[sporty]

3 types of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics :)

Unless you have a graph or some history showing the increased popularity of the inability to copy cd's AND have solid proof it's the RIAA... I'll attribute the other 23% to other factors as well as the riaa.

-s

Re:The RIAA is doing better than I thought

[Frac]

I think it's sad that the RIAA already has 23% of the population convinced that they shouldn't be able to make a copy of a CD they own for personal use.

Not necessarily. My guess is that the majority of the 23% that said nay simply didn't care. Turn on the TV and watch some Jerry Springer - do you think people of such intellectual caliber would even know how to make a copy of the CD? If they don't even know how to make copies, why would they even care if they can make one or not?

Re:The RIAA is doing better than I thought

[macdaddy357]

It is more likely that the 23% don't have a computer, and didn't care enough about the question to really answer it. If 77% of the population will boycott the recording industry, Hilary Rosen and the record company executives will be forced to rethink their views.

Re:The RIAA is doing better than I thought

[mustangdavis]

"... the RIAA already has 23% of the population convinced that they shouldn't be able to make a copy of a CD they own for personal use."

How much did they pay (or what were they offering in exchange) for that 23%?

The other question: How many of those 23% knew that they were talking about information CDs and not CDs that generate interest??

Re:The RIAA is doing better than I thought

[mizhi]

I'll attribute the other 23% to other factors as well as the riaa.

One of the other factors that comes to mind is the lemming-like-stupidity of alot of people. :-)

Re:The RIAA is doing better than I thought

[sporty]

Nah, too small a number for lemmings. I'm gonna think roosters. .. maybe camels?

-s

Re:The RIAA is doing better than I thought

[sckeener]

If they don't even know how to make copies, why would they even care if they can make one or not?

Maybe not all the 23% knows how to burn a cd, but I bet 90% know how to make a tape from CD.

So I wonder why they chose the way they did if they do have the technical skill to make tapes.

Of course they could be lying...as many do when asked how much beer they drink (and then the anthropologist does a study at the trash dump and finds out the 3 that admitted to drinking must drink 90% of the beer in town.)

Re:The RIAA is doing better than I thought

[Amazing Quantum Man]

Nope, they'll just chalk it up to the Evil Content Pirates(tm).

Re:The RIAA is doing better than I thought

[dubiousmike]

I'm not so sure that the parent poster you replied to was trying to be insightful, so much as funny.

I mean, does anyone really think he meant it was fact that the rest were directly influenced by the RIAA?

Someone needs to come up with an emoticon for sarcasm...

Re:The RIAA is doing better than I thought

[sporty]

Heh, how about ;) ;P

Re:The RIAA is doing better than I thought

[edrugtrader]

maybe they thing that making a tape is breaking the law (due of course to RIAA brainwashing)

if someone called you up and said "do you think J-walking should be legal" and even though you J-walk every day, you would probably say no just so you don't get in trouble.

if the question was formed like "would make make a bootleg tape of a cd you purchased?" some people might hear bootleg and think "illegal" and say no. america is stupid like that.

Re:The RIAA is doing better than I thought

[MAXOMENOS]

That means that 77% of the population thinks you SHOULD be able to make a copy of a CD.

Re:The RIAA is doing better than I thought

[mpe]

if someone called you up and said "do you think J-walking should be legal" and even though you J-walk every day, you would probably say no just so you don't get in trouble.

Depends where you ask the question, outside of the US a typical response would be "What's jaywalking?" Anyway the question would be nonsensical in Europe, since pedestrians always have right of way over motor traffic. Due to some of the roads being in use for thousands of years before anyone even though of the internal combustion engine.

In other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

In other news, 99.92% of all customers don't want their products broken, according to a recent survey.

Re:In other news...

[nick-less]

In other news, 99.92% of all customers don't want their products broken, according to a recent survey.

and around 99.99% of all citizens don't want to pay taxes... ;-)

Re:In other news...

[e_n_d_o]

99.99% of citizens do want to pay taxes, when properly informed of the alternative.

Another survey question...

[FreshMeat-BWG]

Do you believe you are entitled to fair use of copyrighted works as provided under US copyright law?

Somehow I venture to believe the respondents might answer somewhere closer to 100%.

Re:Another survey question...

[einer]

Or on the other side: "Do you believe that artists are entitled to payment for every copy of their work that gets distributed to a different individual?"

Or

"Do you believe that businesses should be allowed to distribute media that prevents the illegal copying and re-distribution of their content?"

With art as in politics, it's all in where you draw the line.

Re:Another survey question...

[FearUncertaintyDoubt]

I can see the survey now -- it'll sound like those trivia questions Jay Leno asks random people on the street...

Q: Do you believe you are entitled to fair use of copyrighted works as provided under US copyright law?

42% What the hell is fair use?
27% Ernest Hemingway
18% Uh, are you guys with Elimidate?
7% Da na na na-na - HEY!
4% You know, I always fast forward through the FBI warning, so I really can't say
2% Yes

Re:Another survey question...

[liquidsin]

Those questions are all fine and dandy, and I'd vote 'yes' on both. But they're not the same as the parent poster's question OR the question that the article is based on. We're talking copies for personal use here, so your first question is invalid. And I have no problem with them trying to prevent illegal copying and distribution, so long as it doesn't infringe on my legal copying. If their idea of 'prevent illegal copying' is 'prevent all copying' then they are infringing on my rights.

Re:Another survey question...

[thomas.galvin]

Or on the other side: "Do you believe that artists are entitled to payment for every copy of their work that gets distributed to a different individual?"

Yeah, but what does that have to do with the RIAA?

Re:Another survey question...

[einer]

Well, since the parent post was talking about a hypothetical question, I don't understand why my equally hypothetical questions (both examples of loaded survey questions) are invalid, but you are free to argue as you like. Also, the question asked in the Survey is never explicitely stated, so your argument that my question isn't the same as the one in the survey is correct, but irrelevant.

The questions I asked were posed to demonstrate that surveys tend to use loaded questions. In the case of the parent poster, the question is obviously loaded in favour of the 'consumer's rights' cause. The questions I proposed were obviously loaded in the other direction, and yet phrased in such a way that answering 'yes' doesn't appear disagreeable.

As for my first question. I understand fair use rights. I think they're good. However they do pose a problem, and that is what my first question is pointing to.

And I have no problem with them trying to prevent illegal copying and distribution, so long as it doesn't infringe on my legal copying.

Then you have a problem, as that is exactly what they are trying to do.

Re:Another survey question...

[einer]

Yeah, but what does that have to do with the RIAA?

Uhm... Nothing... ?? But then, neither does the article... Who said ANYTHING about the RIAA within the context of the post or article?

Re:Another survey question...

[thomas.galvin]

Yeah, but what does that have to do with the RIAA?

Uhm... Nothing... ?? But then, neither does the article... Who said ANYTHING about the RIAA within the context of the post or article?

The RIAAis trying, thorugh various means, to push copy-protected CDs on us. Therefore, any discussion about copy-protected CDs automatically involves the RIAA.

Now, this particular thread is about how the wording of a question can alter the responses recieved. For instance, as you pointed out, asking "do you think artists should be compensated..." would make people morelikely to answer in favor of copy-protected CDs; I was merely pointing out that the RIAA, and therfore copy-protected CDs, have absolutly nothing to do with ensuring artists are fairly compensated.

Re:Another survey question...

[Pxtl]

Heheh, - I've heard of studies that ask "Do you support a fetus' right to life" and "Do you support a woman's right to reproductive choice?" and get completely different stats. I don't have a link tho.

Re:Another survey question...

[isorox]

42% What the hell is fair use?
27% Ernest Hemingway
18% Uh, are you guys with Elimidate?
7% Da na na na-na - HEY!
4% You know, I always fast forward through the FBI warning, so I really can't say
2% Yes


That doesnt leave any room for
28% Cowboy Neal

Re:Another survey question...

[G-funk]

When will you slashdotters learn? Fair use is a law, not a right. You do not have a right to fair use. You can't be sued for it, it's legal, but you do not have a right to do it. You have a right to live, to no be imprisoned without due process...

It's legal to have a million dollars, but you don't have a right to it.

Re:Another survey question...

[Terralthra]

You do not have a right to fair use.

Untrue. I direct you to the 9th Amendment to the US Constitution, Amendment IX, which reads, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Just because they don't say you have the right to it doesn't mean you don't have the right to it. The US government has legislated a great many things, among them the specifics of copyright law, and you do have the right to make copies of any copyrighted work which you have purchased, so long as those copies are for personal or fair use.

I think you are arguing a semantic distinction where none exists. If I am allowed to do something by law, I have the right to do it. The fact that there are conditions on that act does not mean I do not have a right to do so. I have the right to have a million dollars. That doesn't mean the government has to give me $1e6, but I do still have the right to have it.

Crippled CDs?

[tigertigr]

Please.

They prefer to be called "digitally challenged" CDs.

Thank you.

Re:Crippled CDs?

[EricWright]

I was thinking "Digitally Challenged Audio Discs", as they do not follow the Red Book standard required to call them CDs.

Re:Crippled CDs?

[frank_adrian314159]

No, it's "Differently-Abled Audio Media"...

Who are these people who answered otherwise?

[p_rotator]

82% believe they should be allowed to make personal backup copies of CD's.

In other news, 18% of consumers are thrilled that their new computer came with a retractible cup-holder.

Re:Who are these people who answered otherwise?

[Kakarat]

Cup holders? I should be so lucky. I'm still trying to prevent some of my users from using them as foot rests.

I wonder about the minority

[superid]

So, 23% of people polled think that if they buy a CD it should only play in 1 device? And 18% think that they should NOT be allowed to make backups?

Can we get some bleach for the gene pool please?

Re:I wonder about the minority

[Daniel Dvorkin]

A substantial portion of those 23% and 18% probably replied to the questions with, "Huh? What? I guess so ..." and the person taking the survey wrote it down as "Yes."

Re:I wonder about the minority

[jedidiah]

OTOH, I once worked for a market research company where the only thing that mattered was results. Management there acknowledged the difficulty inherent in asking some people certain questions. Many of our respondents simply weren't very bright or were merely uninformed.

I would expect the latter to be at least 25%, if not more. I wouldn't expect them to buy much music either.

Consumers?

[The Turd Report]

100% of RIAA and their cronies *want* Crippled CDs. Whose $ do you think politicians are going to listen to?

Re:Consumers?

[John Hasler]

Are you implying that you think that the RIAA is trying to get laws passed requiring all CDs to be "crippled"? If not, politicians have nothing to do with it. It's the consumer's dollars that matter, and this survey implies that the consumers are going to use those dollars to vote NO.

Re:Consumers?

[sparkz]

Where did the RIAA get these $ from?

Americans, and ... oh yeah, there's "the rest of the world", too - it's bigger than America.

Consumers have more $$ than the RIAA.

To answer your question, though:
RIAA

And in recent news,

[browser_war_pow]

a poll recently uncovered that the majority of Americans think that property rights are still relevent and necessary for a functional civil society.....

Re:And in recent news,

[JonTurner]

"a poll recently uncovered that the majority of Americans think..."

My, aren't we quite the optimist today?

Re:And in recent news,

[tsg]

...while some people continue to confuse property with copyright.

Not once, in the Copyright Clause of the Constitution or the Copyright Term Extension Act, does the word "property" appear. Not even "intellectual property".

Copyright != property.

How many people actually know about this issue

[looseBits]

I wonder what percentage of Joe Users out there have heard of the DMCA or have any idea about the war over fair use. Unless the public becomes educated on the problem, Senator Hollings has nothing to fear from the voter.

Re:How many people actually know about this issue

[Jucius Maximus]

"I wonder what percentage of Joe Users out there have heard of the DMCA or have any idea about the war over fair use."

Probably less than the percentage that have heard of DVD Region controls. (Since the system favours region 1 to begin with, people in N.A. don't have a reason to know about it even though all the equipment and DVDs they buy are region 1.)

Crippled CDs..

[grub]

I'm all for respecting peoples' various levels of abilities, but if they think I'm going to build a small ramp to my CD tray just so their crippled CDs can play.. well they've got another thing coming.

Suprised

[MadocGwyn]

Heh, I'm suprised 82% of the american population knows what cd's are

No, really?

[thomas.galvin]

Here's a nice tall glass of "no kidding" to the good people at Gartner. I wish I could have seen the questionaire:

Do you prefer:
1. CDs that you can listen to however/whenever you want
2. CDs that destroy your CD-ROM's firmware

Here's a wakeup call for Hollywood and all of the Software firms: when an American buys something, even a CD, movie, or program, he/she thinks that they now own it. that's how it's always been. That's how it still is with books. That's how it's going to be with your products once people get tired of your DRM antics.

Re:No, really?

[Citizen of Earth]

That's how it's going to be with your products once people get tired of your DRM antics.

I think you mean "once people [J.Q. Public] find out about your DRM antics" they are going to be mad as hell.

Re:No, really?

[jedidiah]

One day, things simply "won't work". Homer and Flanders won't have any clue why. You likely won't even be able to clue them in. They will simply be pissed and know that "it's broke".

Also, you can take their liberties away but never try to swindle them. They WILL care about the money.

Re:No, really?

[Citizen of Earth]

One day, things simply "won't work". Homer and Flanders won't have any clue why. You likely won't even be able to clue them in. They will simply be pissed and know that "it's broke".

And then they'll talk to the techie guy down the street or at work and they'll find out exactly who to be pissed at. And when DRM reaches their television sets, they'll overthrow the government (so to speak).

18%?

[Talisman]

"82% believe they should be allowed to make personal backup copies of CD's."

I'm hoping the other 18% checked the 3) I don't understand this question option.

If 18% of the public believes they shouldn't have the right to back-up their own software, we should begin to panic.

Then again, 18% of the public probably believes in Santa Clause, including G. W. Bush, the Lesser.

Talisman

Re:18%?

[sparkz]

What percentage of Americans, would you say, can spell "Santa Claus" ?

I also believe

[Choco-man]

that constituents don't want corrupted congressmen.

let's see, who do you think will have more influence - a poll that shows roughly 80% of constituents don't want a certain 'feature' (half of those constituents will likely be democrat, half republican. halve that again for the actual numbers that will vote..)

OR

the HUGE amounts of contribution money donated by industry to congressional representatives to ensure their voice is heard fairly.

In order to clear up consumer rights issues, you must first clear up congressional responsibility issues. Stop allowing corporations to be treated as more important citizens than the actual voting citizens first.

Re:I also believe

[swillden]

let's see, who do you think will have more influence - a poll that shows roughly 80% of constituents don't want a certain 'feature' (half of those constituents will likely be democrat, half republican. halve that again for the actual numbers that will vote..)

OR

the HUGE amounts of contribution money donated by industry to congressional representatives to ensure their voice is heard fairly.

Congressmen aren't stupid, if it's 80% of the voting public against a few tens of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions, they'll suddenly discover that they really, deeply, and venemously hate the RIAA.

The cash is useful, sure, it buys advertising and helps win those votes that keep you in office, but anything that *seriously* bothers a significant portion of their constituencies such that they might consider giving their vote to the other guy over it, well, corporations can't vote, now, can they?

Now if it's between that $25K contribution and a small percentage of single-issue fanatics and a large percentage of voters who really can't be bothered to care about the issue, then the money does them more good.

The people do *have* the power. They just don't often exercise it. Particularly when there are more important things on their minds, like what other freedoms they can give up in support of the war on terrorism.

Re:I also believe

[Reziac]

Since it's unlikely that corporate or special interest contributions will be banned, and since part of the problem is relative mass of money per person (corporate "persons" vs real citizen-type persons) ... here's a thought, as a way to perhaps even the balance a bit:

Determine how much the average citizen contributes to political campaigns (ie. average dollars donated per citizen of voting age). Call this X.

Restrict corp contributions for each candidate to no more than X times the number of U.S. citizens (of voting age) employed by said corporation, determined as an average of the number employed over a period equal to the term of office for whoever they wish to contribute to.

Special interest contributions should be likewise restricted, per the number of documented persons on whom this special interest impinges. (No making up your own stats. No stuffing your numbers with high school kids working as unpaid interns.)

That way even tho it'll still be biased toward the deep pockets (which I doubt we'll ever totally prevent), it'll have at least some relationship to that particular corp's impact on the economy as a whole.

I haven't run any numbers on this, but it came to mind while reading your post, so here it is for all to abuse -- anyone care to run a bit of money analysis on the concept?

I'm calling the ACLU

[FreeLinux]

You should show at least a little sympathy for them. Put yourself in their shoes for a moment. Can you imagine what it must be like to spend your whole life stuck in a CD caddie?

Re:I'm calling the ACLU

[grub]

You should show at least a little sympathy for them. Put yourself in their shoes for a moment. Can you imagine what it must be like to spend your whole life stuck in a CD caddie?

Sorry but I'm drawing the line. First crippled CDs, then they'll push deaf Walkman players and blind monitors.

I dont think public opinion matters...

[jormurgandr]

I dont think those senators or the RIAA really care at all about what the general public thinks is fair/not-fair use of the products purchased. All these senators care about is the bottom dollar, and how many ben franklins are in their pocket. It would be nice if they really did care what their constituants (sp) thought, but the truth is they dont, wont, and never really did.

Survey Suggestions

[Guido69]

Why doesn't G2 survey the MPAA, RIAA, and their legislative lackeys to see how many of them care about what their customers/constituents want or believe?

What consumers want...?

[CathedralRulz]

I don't really think that a consumer poll of what people want to do at no cost is relevant. I am sure if you asked the public if they think there should be no ATM fees, if they should be able to carry their cell phone numbers across different carriers, and if they should be able to download/pirate mucis off the internet without restrictions, most would also assent.

Polls are not news; information that moves polls is. There was a day when journalists shunned polls, now they are the basis for a story.

Re:What consumers want...?

[liquidsin]

The difference here is that none of the things you mentioned are constitutional rights, whereas fair use is. I'm sure if I asked everyone if they want a million dollars, they'd all say yes, but that's not in the constitution either. I'm not entirely sure how you got modded up "insightful", so if anyone can tell me which part of this post provoked that mod, let me in on the secret.

Re:What consumers want...?

[BurKaZoiD]

...pirate mucis

...eeeeeewwww!

Re:What consumers want...?

[Catiline]

IANAL, but my interpretation of the Eldred v. Ashcroft briefs-- most notably, where they reference that copyright cases are subject to First Amendment analysis-- would be a pretty unambiguous case for constitutional basis for fair use. After all (and this is my own over-simplification) what good is free speech if the is nothing you are legally permitted to say thanks to copyright?

Let's hope Senators Hollings and Berman...

[lynx_user_abroad]

Let's hope Senators Hollings and Berman are paying attention.

No, let's hope not. Personally, I'd rather see them maintain their delusions until they're no longer in office. After that, they can delude as they see fit.

It's a minor issue to most voters

[ceejayoz]

Let's hope Senators Hollings and Berman are paying attention.

The vast majority of voters won't care a bit. Yes, they'd like non-crippled CDs, but that won't sway their voting. People usually vote based on whether someone is Republican or Democratic - the stance the candidate takes on important issues is (depressingly) unimportant to most people.

Re:It's a minor issue to most voters

[startled]

I see tons of surveys of "likely voters" where the margin of victory is easily covered by "undecided". I've seen plenty where either side has in the mid-30's to mid-40's, and the other 20 or so percent is undecided. If they just voted based on party, why would they be undecided?

I know plenty of people who, despite Democratic or Republican leanings, vote on both sides of the line in every election.

Do you have any evidence to back up your statement? It certainly seems contrary to what I've observed, but if it's true, I'd be interested to see more detail.

Re:It's a minor issue to most voters

[Zordak]

People usually vote based on whether someone is Republican or Democratic - the stance the candidate takes on important issues is (depressingly) unimportant to most people

I'm not a professional political scientist, but from the politics classes I've had to take, my understanding is that the percentage of voters who are strict ideologues -- straight party voters -- is quite small. Most people tend to vote for whoever has the pitch line that appeals to them best at the time. That's why you see, for example, states that have Republican governors but Democratic senators. That's also why you see stuff like the Democrat in New Jersey who pulled out after the last minute when he saw that he was losing and changed the whole status of the race. If people were voting along party lines, replacing one Democrat with another Democrat would not make a bit of difference. The truth is, many voters are not smart enough to be ideologues. They don't have any real opinions. They vote for somebody either because he makes them feel good, is pushing a program that personally appeals to them, or just because they know his face. People may not care about a candidate's stance on all of the issues, but most of them will care a great deal about the candidate's stance on a very few select issues that are personally important. Like you said, this issue won't sway many votes, but not because people don't care about issues. It's because people don't care about this issue. Maybe they should, but they don't.

Re:It's a minor issue to most voters

[Asprin]

Let's hope Senators Hollings and Berman are paying attention.

The vast majority of voters won't care a bit. Yes, they'd like non-crippled CDs, but that won't sway their voting. People usually vote based on whether someone is Republican or Democratic - the stance the candidate takes on important issues is (depressingly) unimportant to most people.

I suspect that, the vast majority of American voters is more likely concerned with other, more immediate issues like taxes, education and security for "entertainment-industry issues" to even make it on to their radar.

I agree that this is an issue that merits voter consideration, but I must also concede that it is in no way important enough to be the primary factor in choosing a candidate to support -- I'm way too concerned with working, paying bills, the stock market, invading Iraq and trying to make time to spend with my wife for this to be a primary election issue for me.

#INCLUDE "rant.h";

Now, having said that, I ALSO have point out that this is an issue that really frosts my twinkie. I do not like the idea that jerkola neo-Socialist (yes, neo-SOCIALIST - look at the things they are asking for: managed competition, heavy government involvement and regulation, artificially high barriers to entering restricted markets, federal subsidation, etc... How is that NOT Socialist?) executives are paying high-priced lawyers several times my salary per day to figure out how to dictate how I use my property. I would love it if we all just woke up one morning and decided to never buy anything from them again. Music would survive - it just wouldn't be THEIR music.

For that matter, it isn't just the RIAA/MPAA - that's just the tip of it:

Why do I have to buy my cell phone service and my cell phone from the same vendor? What kind of an asshead designed this? I should be able to buy a phone at Wal-Mart, walk across the street to Verizon and buy an ID card I pop into my phone that keeps my phone book and account info on it so I can switch phones my swapping cards. (Don't they do it that way in Japan?)

For that matter, the telcos are simply run by assheads and the whole thing needs to be torpedoed and rebuilt using voice-over-IP on high-density fiber by new companies. It's not like we're suddenly going to stop needing phones all of the sudden.

Same with Major League Baseball - it's run by assheads, too. The only way to fix the stupidity here is for the whole thing to collapse under its own weight so it can be rebuilt under new ownership.

Credit card companies? assheads. ... and PREDATORIAL assheads at that.

Every stupid software package out there that puts an icon in my system tray to tell me it's installed was programmed by ASSHEADS! If I had a dollar for every PC with performance/stability problems I've 'fixed' by running MSCONFIG I wouldn't be typing this from Ohio right now.
SO, STOP BUGGING ME ABOUT HOLLINGS AND BERMAN! AS YOU CAN SEE, I'VE GOT A LOT ON MY MIND TODAY!!!!! ARRRRRRRGHGHGH!

Re:It's a minor issue to most voters

[Amazing Quantum Man]

Same with Major League Baseball - it's run by assheads, too. The only way to fix the stupidity here is for the whole thing to collapse under its own weight so it can be rebuilt under new ownership.

Maybe, but the good guys won this time.

Re:It's a minor issue to most voters

[Kevin Stevens]

Senators pay attention to money. When the EFF or an organization that exists to take a stance against crippled cd's and the issues surrounding it contribute more campaign money than the RIAA and its associated companies, senators will take notice. Until then... dont hold your breath. I feel it is very unlikely that copyright's will ever become a hotbutton issue like gun control or abortion that will really sway politicians due to voter beliefs (and I think the NRA is the only reason gun's are not completely restricted). However, politicians are good at remembering who bought them their position of power.

Re:It's a minor issue to most voters

[donutello]

the stance the candidate takes on important issues is (depressingly) unimportant to most people

Please. CD burning is hardly an important issue when compared to issues like terrorism, a possible War on Iraq, taxes, abortion rights, new roads/environmentalism, etc. And I find it depressing that some people think CD burning is more important than any of those issues.

Re:It's a minor issue to most voters

[transiit]

I try to be an informed voter, and when I run into an issue that I could go either way on, and I see no possible way to make a decision short of flipping a coin, I follow the following rules:

1) Vote for the Libertarian candidate or the weirdest looking person in the voter information guide (which is usually the Libertarian)

2) Vote for any bill that will raise taxes. This is part of a strategy that is fulfilled with rule #3.

3) Vote against any government spending. In conjunction with #2, this should create a large government surplus which shows either a) They are largely incapable of doing effective work, no matter how much money they demand, or b) It gives ample opportunity for the corrupt to embezzle their way into an indictment.

4) Ignore national elections and focus on local elections. I don't care how many times people talk about "global economies" and whatnot, the issues that tend to impact my life daily tend to be decided at the local level first, followed in order by the state and national levels.

5) Vote for anything that gives the citizens increased rights to kill themselves. Just because.

-transiit

The real question...

[harks]

The real question is whether or not people would buy a CD that was restricted. Sure, no one wants it, but will people skip over buying CDs which are copyprotected?

Re:The real question...

[Citizen of Earth]

The real question is whether or not people would buy a CD that was restricted.

I have already voted, several times. Unfortunately, they seem to have confused my voting with a revenue theoretically lost to piracy. No, it's revenue lost because I don't want to risk buying a crippled CD!

Pay for something that's free?

[mirio]

For those out there (RIAA, MPAA, congress) that believe people refuse to pay for something they could otherwise get for free, I have but two words:

BOTTLED WATER

Re:Pay for something that's free?

[jafac]

No, here's the kicker. The people who pay $2 for a bottle of water are paying for the convenience. The convenience of having a ready supply of water they can carry with them in a lightweight, disposable (debatable) unbreakable, cheap, reusable (not that many people actually reuse them) bottle.

And here's my point - people would pay for the convenience of having high quality digital tracks on a plastic CD. (would? they do!) - rather than play Kazaa roulette.

Re:

[rmohr02]

According to GartnerG2, 77% of consumers believe they should be allowed to copy CD's for personal use in another device. 82% believe they should be allowed to make personal backup copies of CD's. Let's hope Senators Hollings and Berman are paying attention.

Since when did Senators Hollings and Berman give a shit about the concerns of the general public?

Backup?

[adjensen]

Okay, who on Earth thinks that they should "backup audio cds"? Come on, that's a pretty forced issue. I have several thousand audio cds, and while I'd hate to lose any of them, I don't think I'm going to be burning CDR copies of the pile.

One thing that the synopsis fails to include is the like:

60 percent said they should be able to give copies of CDs to members of their families.

...and that's pretty much the point of the RIAA. You don't want to be limited in your use of the medium, but you also see nothing wrong with ripping off the artist. If people didn't have such a cavalier attitude towards the whole issue, copy protection wouldn't have ever come up in the first place.

Don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of the RIAA and their heavy handed tactics, nor of the major media companies that are wringing every last dime out of the transaction at the expense of the artist and the consumer. But, by the same token, if no one is buying cds anymore, what impetous is there for your favourite band to bother making one?

Re:Backup?

[NineNine]

Hey, I back up my audios! I keep all of 'em nice in safe in a couple of Sony jukeboxes in the house, and the ones that go in the car are copies, because they all get scratched to fuck in the car. Otherwise, I'd be buying a lot of CD's just to replace ones I'd already bought.

But, still, I agree with you, that "trading" copies with family & friends is theft.

Re:Backup?

[Freedom Bug]

Well, I've only got slightly less than a thousand, but I've started the process of backing mine up.

So far I've had:

3 CD's with scratches on them making a good song unplayable on many players.
2 CD's gone missing.
1 CD left at an ex-girlfriend's house, and I don't have the guts to go get it back.

But mainly, I keep my CD's in a highly portable manner (in 100 - 200 CD folders) and carry them around all over. If one of them goes walking, I'd rather have backups than having to search every pawn shop in town....

And include me in that 60 percent. If I purchase Cable TV, a novel or a newspaper, I'm buying it for the whole family, just not for myself. Why should a CD be any different? And if two separate copies makes it easier to share with the family, I'll make two copies. Apple obviously agrees: Mac OSX upgrade is a "family license".

Bryan

Re:Backup?

[Citizen of Earth]

60 percent said they should be able to give copies of CDs to members of their families.

In Canada anyway, that would be perfectly legal, provided that the members of your family (or friends) borrowed your CDs and did the copying themselves. This is why Canadians pay a levy on recordable media.

Re:Backup?

[NewtonsLaw]

Okay, who on Earth thinks that they should "backup audio cds"?

Well here in NZ where charting CDs cost as much as $35 each, backing them up onto a $1 CDR constitutes cheap insurance against damage.

If you argue that it's not worth spending a buck to protect $35 then chances are your house and other posessions are also uninsured -- after all, why spend money to protect your assets?

Of course the RIAA could kill the need/right/claim to backup CDs by offering an "at cost media replacement" service...

If they were prepared to replace a scratched or otherwise unusable original CD for just the price of the media (say $1) then they could say "you don't need to back them up" -- and that would add huge weight to their copy-protection pitch.

However, as we well know, the RIAA isn't interested in being fair.

Which leaves us wondering exactly what you're buying when you purchase a music CD.

It can't be a license to listen to the music or they'd be happy to replace the media at cost should it get damaged.

That means you must really be paying a significant amount of money just for the plastic and aluminum that make up the disk itself. In which case -- who the hell do they think they are trying to tell us that, having paid for it, we can't do whatever we want with it (including duplication for fair use purposes).

It strikes me that the RIAA want to have their cake and eat it to.

How can so many really stupid people be in control of so much money? Me thinks it can't be simply by virtue of hard work.

Re:Backup?

[thelexx]

"I have several thousand audio cds"

If a couple = 2, a few = 3, several = 4+, then you have 4000+ cds. At fifteen bucks a pop, that's $60K. Keerist. I'd be willing to bet that most people only have a small fraction of that number, and they have better things to do with their money than purchase the same music over and over again.

"if no one is buying cds anymore, what impetous is there for your favourite band to bother making one?"

The impetus is the creative muse. Always has been and always will be for _real artists_. Artists by nature want people to see/hear their art. Talk to a painter some time.

Re:Backup?

[Jucius Maximus]

"Okay, who on Earth thinks that they should "backup audio cds"? Come on, that's a pretty forced issue. I have several thousand audio cds, and while I'd hate to lose any of them, I don't think I'm going to be burning CDR copies of the pile."

I think audio CDs should be backed up. If I had done proper backups, a certain rare CD which is no longer produced would not have been destroyed when the CD changer machine broke down.

Similarly, would you leave your original CDs in a car? I woudln't. That is why I burn copies of the legally purchased originals and play them in the car.

Re:Backup?

[Lil'wombat]

Okay, who on Earth thinks that they should "backup audio cds"?

Until I can take my scratched CD back to Best Buy and get a new copy for the cost of media - since I've already purchased a license to listen to the damn thing - then YES i want to be able to make a backup as is my right under the law.

And on a related topic -- if the stupid CD/Book/game is now longer avaailable because it's "out of print", then all talk of copyright is moot. If I make an unauthorized copy, how is it piracy when the origional isn't avaialble for sale?

Re:Backup?

[Exantrius]

I Do.

I have a really crappy CD player in my car (I had no choice, I was a college student and my radio croaked. I got it for free. Sue me). When I insert a CD, it leaves two nice big scars on it (not scratches, *SCARS*). On retail CDs, it usually doesn't hurt them much, but If I just spent 15 dollars on a cd, I don't want to take the chance of losing it. Sure, it's not much of an investment compared to other things I own, it's still something I own, and I'm not going to pay every three weeks to get a new copy of that cd.

While my CD player kills cd-r's after only two or three insertions, a cd-r costs me... about a dime. I can live with a dime loss ever couple weeks (I generally listen to the same cd for long periods of time

and as for "ripping off the artist". I made two copies of this cd. One for my cousin, and another for a friend who happens to be a teacher. My cousin played it for a couple of his friends, then both of them went and bought the last two copies of it at the local warehouse. My teacher friend played it for her classroom, and apparently three of the students decided to go buy it themselves. I'm sure glad I ripped off the band, and got them to sell five more copies than if I hadn't made those copies.

All that being said, Flogging molly is a fucking great band.

That's all, go about your business. /ex

Re:Backup?

[tsg]

Okay, who on Earth thinks that they should "backup audio cds"?

Just because you choose not to doesn't mean you shouldn't have the choice to.

Re:Backup?

[Scrameustache]

And on a related topic -- if the stupid CD/Book/game is now longer avaailable because it's "out of print", then all talk of copyright is moot. If I make an unauthorized copy, how is it piracy when the origional isn't avaialble for sale?

Because the owners of the copyright might be deliberatly abstaining from distributing that product in order to create a shortage that will bring about the correct conditions for the special edition release at grossly inflated prices.
Its the same scam they use to make extra-valuable "rare" cards of collectible card games (like Magic: The gathering).

Its not about piracy, it never was. Its about controll.

Not likely to help

[laigle]

There's still two major problems.

1. Ignorance. Most people don't know that there are people in Congress being payed to take those rights away from them. That would involve complex actions like searching out information (hey, it's not like the major media outlet owned papers are covering this issue in depth). It might even require the average American to read at a high school level, and we all know that's a pipe dream. And thus they won't find it out till it's too late. Which leads into..

2. Apathy. Nobody stands up for their rights any more. Especially when it's a little thing like copying a CD. Then having chips implanted into their TVs to prevent them from deviously recording the show they'll be missing while working the second job to pay for all their new compliant electronics. Then having to pony up tax money for the much needed "Buy Jack Valenti a gold plated limo every six months" fund when even those measures don't save the entertainment industry from the greed, idiocy, and fraud of those running it. Then having the FBI wiretap all communications, open all mail, and sneak hidden cameras into every home to make sure no piracy is occuring. Well, that's the ones who don't get drafted for our wars to fight terrorism in Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Russia, Western Europe, China, Mexico, Canada, and New York.

The question's wording is important.

[Corvaith]

I mean, think about it.

Did the questions really ask whether they thought they /should/ be able to, whether they /wanted/ to, or whether they thought /others/ should be able to? The first two are night and day... and don't think that people won't respond differently to the third than the first. It's a matter of context.

Manipulating a poll like this is extremely easy--and as easy to do by accident as on purpose. You can't rely on numbers like this.

Seems low to me (or Why not 100%?)

[jvmatthe]

77% of consumers believe they should be allowed to copy CD's for personal use in another device. 82% believe they should be allowed to make personal backup copies of CD's

Honestly, I've never met anyone that felt that they shouldn't be able to copy their music to another format. I realize I'm just a sheltered GNU/Linux geek and all that, but really...what did the other 23% or 18% (resp.) of people mean when they said they shouldn't copy music to other formats or make backups? Were they just ignorant that such things could be done? Were they really so afraid of some boogeyman of copyright enforcement that they think exists to track down and kill so-called pirates? Or do the RIAA and MPAA really account for that large of a chunk of our population? ;^)

Has anyone on /. ever met someone that said "Truly, we should not copy CD music to MP3 players" or "I won't make a backup of a CD for my car because it's a crime"? Other than a member of the copyright cartels, that is.

From the pages of Duh Journal.

[Prince_Ali]

Our extensive research has found that the majority of people like things that work and do not destroy their property if used in a normal manner. Hillary Rosen was reached for comment saying, "These results are flawed. Our focus groups have stated that they enjoy the crippled CDs... at least more than having their pubic hairs pulled out one by one."

It Doesn't Matter How Many Believe..

[Cygnusx12]

To put it simply, it doesn't matter how many people believe this. What matters is, how many of the cited percentages are active voters, and for that matter, are willing to vote for someone else because of their Senator's stance on the issue.

We can cite polls and percentages all day, but until more people start excercising the right to vote, Hollings stance on the issue wont change.

I may be slightly off here, but I believe less than half the eligible population voted in the last presidential election.

My guess

[Dephex Twin]

The way I see it, those people who said they don't want to be able to do these things are mostly people who don't care. Not too computer savvy, and/or not too excited by music in general.

"Do you think you should be able to make backups of your music CDs to other media?"

"Well uh... no, I really don't care about that."

I'm sure there are some who have succombed to the propaganda, but probably not all, or even most, of the "no" people.

In a related story...

[VivianC]

100% of RIAA member companies don't give a damn what consumers think about crippled CDs as long as they keep shelling out $18.99 a crack for Britney et al.

i dont know...

[DRue]

i think those numbers could be a little misleading. I want to know how the poll was conducted. I'm sure if it was an online deal, more people would think that they should be able to copy cd's. If, however, they surveyed kiddies at the local walmart, i don't think most people would care!

on the flip side, though, who would say that they don't think they should be able to backup their music, unless they worked for the record companies?

So really the bottom line is - the poll is rather pointless. It's, like, duh :)

And in other news.

[sideshow]

97% of all Americans want to sit at home while dump trucks pour hundred dollar bills into their swimming pools.

The way of CD-copying in Denmark

[LamerBunny]

In Denmark (where I live), it is legal to copy CDs for backup and personal use. Furthermore it is legal to lend your CDs to your friends, who may then copy them. It is even legal to copy CDs from your local library. All this copied music can be encoded as you choose, and as a result all my mp3s are legal.

This, of course, has caused tons of contreversy, but the fact is, that the Danish government has recognized the right of the individual to manipulate, compile and even share legally purchased music...

I am not sure if this harms the music industry, and there has been talk about putting a small price on getting CDs from the library, but for now, it is totally free, and totally legal.

Oh... btw - artist of course get the regular royalties from people getting their CDs at the library... so they DO earn some from it.

- Tha Lamer, Tha Bunny...

Re:The way of CD-copying in Denmark

[Darth RadaR]

This, of course, has caused tons of contreversy, but the fact is, that the Danish government has recognized the right of the individual to manipulate, compile and even share legally purchased music...

I am not sure if this harms the music industry, and there has been talk about putting a small price on getting CDs from the library, but for now, it is totally free, and totally legal.

The only harm I'd see with copying CDs would be selling pirated music. Every city world-wide has people selling pirated (some *very* poorly made) CDs out of boxes in street markets. I wonder why the RIAA doesn't go after them with the same amount of vigor that they're going after Joe Consumer with?

Re:The way of CD-copying in Denmark

[glwtta]

In Denmark (where I live), it is legal to copy CDs for backup and personal use.

Heh, that's technically legal here in the US too, odd isn't it?

Re:The way of CD-copying in Denmark

[int69h]

Is that the same Denmark that Lars Ulrich is from? Oh sweet irony.

Re:The way of CD-copying in Denmark

[Scarblac]

Oh... btw - artist of course get the regular royalties from people getting their CDs at the library...

So it's not actually free copying, it's just that you don't pay directly for it. They still charge for the mp3s you make, but they charge the library.

Re:The way of CD-copying in Denmark

[manly_15]

It is even legal to copy CDs from your local library.

My local (canadian) library allows borrowing of CD's for a modest 25 cents "insurance fee". You have to return the cd after a week. In many ways, this is better than downloading music off of P2P services, because you get CD quality sound! Some CD's I've bought, some I've ripped to ogg, and some I listened to three songs and returned the next day.

So it seems like that a great distribution model for record companies exists. Allow people to sample what they want for a modest fee, and give them the opportunity to buy the cd (or oggs or mp3s or whatever) after sampling.

Re:The way of CD-copying in Denmark

[glwtta]

meh, that's why I said "technically" - goes right back to that "internally inconsistent" part.

Hrm..

[Frank of Earth]

But while consumers are perturbed with this solution, the study found that 74 percent of those surveyed believed that if the music companies must distribute copy-protected CDs, they should contain warning labels. Which give good directions on where to find the latest tools to copy these uncopyable cds.

CDs

[sulli]

I want to make backup copies of my Certificates of Deposit! And then cash them all in.

Completely flawed premise

[gsfprez]

from the article (yes, i read it)

>The copy-protected CDs limit users options--preventing them from making a copy of the CD to play in their car, for example, as one could with a cassette tape.

this is 100% BS.

Copy-protected CD do NOT stop someone from making a copy of the CD to play in their car, for example.

There is NO CD that can stop you from doing this.

1. Get a 1/8" to 1/8" cable from Radio Shack
2. Plug one end into a CD player that the CD plays in
3. Plug the other end into your computer
4. Hit "play" on the CD player at the same time you hit "record" on your computer's audio recording program.

99% of people will NOT be able to tell the difference when listening to the "unmakable" CD in their car.

They will, also, be able to make mixes.. that is, they can put tracks from MULTPILE "copy protected" circular-shiny-thingies-that-only-play-in-older-cd -players .

The only copy-protected music CD is the one that doesn't play in ANY CD player.

There is no way to stop me from copying the information from a media which allows me to hear, see, smell or taste. At least, not a copy which is "close enough" for me not to care that its a "perfect" copy.

Re:Completely flawed premise

[glesga_kiss]

Get a 1/8" to 1/8" cable from Radio Shack

Hmm, burn digital quality at 8 speed, or do it with a one-speed fudge of a copy using your crapper-than-crap analogue-to-digital converter in your cheap on-the-motherboard sound hardware. Tough choice, not to mention the inconvience of correctly setting the record-levels, if you are even aware of the fact that it's neccessary for a good copy without clipping.

99% of people will NOT be able to tell the difference when listening to the "unmakable" CD in their car.

Bull. Most will be able to tell the difference, but some might not care too much or have even worse gear in the car that makes it sound crap anyway.

Why should I be limited in what I can do, just because some folk might not be as passionate about it...? What kind of an argument is that? OK, most folk don't go skateboarding. Ban it I say. Or ski-ing. Or motorcycling. Or insert just about every passtime [here]

Re:Completely flawed premise

[liquidsin]

Well good then. So the next time my mom wants to burn her Elton John cd so she can keep a copy in her car, can I tell her to call you so you can talk her through it? She's perfectly capable of burning cds the way she always has, but she's not the most technologically adept person, and it may take her a dozen walks through to get your simple and obvious technique mastered.

Re:Completely flawed premise

[SoCalChris]

Yes, but by going around their copy protection scheme on the CD, didn't you just violate the DMCA?

Re:Completely flawed premise

[Jucius Maximus]

"99% of people will NOT be able to tell the difference when listening to the "unmakable" CD in their car."

You forget -- 99% of the people will not be able to do your procedure!! Messing with passthru cables and recording from an input but only if you have a full duplex sound card is too hard. And heaven forbid that they have to modify the mixer settings to enable the line-in.

A joe with Roxio EasyCd and a burner will still be stopped by "copy protected discs" and that is what the industry wants. They know they will never be able to stop people like us from being able to do it. All they need to do is make copying CDs inaccessible to the average person. This is why usenet file trading will not die. You have to be skilled to do it.

Re:Completely flawed premise

[EvilStein]

Better yet - get a small 4 channel Mackie mixing board and hook up multiple audio devices to it, and run the output to your computer. I think you can happily clean up files in Peak LE. Besides, with everything hooked together to a mixing board, you can finally make mp3s out of that big pile of records you have while cleaning up the audio a bit at the same time. ;)

Re:Completely flawed premise

[GauteL]

While you are correct, this is besides the point.

Even IF it is still available to do this, it is just really, really inconvenient compared to how you could do it earlier.

I hate products that are made really inconvenient for me as a purchaser just because someone may share it with their friends.

Re:Completely flawed premise

[Have Blue]

And if various bills get passed in the future, the CD player that can play copy-protected CDs will not have a 1/8" audio-out jack.

Re:Completely flawed premise

[subsolar2]

And if various bills get passed in the future, the CD player that can play copy-protected CDs will not have a 1/8" audio-out jack.

That's OK, my CD player has a 1/4" audio out jack. ;^) that I can still use.

Ok that was dumb.

Re:Completely flawed premise

[Shelled]

Well it'll make them damn hard to listen to then unless the RIAA can push through DRM skull implants.

Re:Completely flawed premise

[Powercntrl]

And if various bills get passed in the future, the CD player that can play copy-protected CDs will not have a 1/8" audio-out jack.

More than likely, a Palladium-equiped PC would happily record the analog audio source; however, the file created will be encrypted and tied to just THAT PC and any "trusted" portable devices.

Potentially, CD ripping could be reintroduced with Palladium. Want protected WMA files that will play on your trusted portable player or your PC? Pay a small ransom to the RIAA and you'll be able to copy those audio tracks. Gosh, Palladium really is a wet dream for the RIAA.

Gartner: Masters of the Obvious

[salesgeek]

It's good to see the industry shaman/guru/fortune tellers at Gartner stick to their comfortable pattern of stating the obvious:

* Desktop computers cost a wad of cash to support
* Servers cost a wad of cash to support
* Companies want their computer stuff for cheap (TCO or Total Cost of Ownership)
* Losing cusotmers is expensive (Customer relationship management)
* Huge databases will be the norm in a few years (I love how this one is always true)

and joining Gartner's other brilliant flashes of the obvious:

* Consumers want to be able to use the software/music/movies/whatever they buy!

Maybe I should write a few cheesy white papers like "Controling the transaction cost of email" or "Why having an accounting system is important" and put on a few webinars... the boom, I could hire a bunch of marketing flunk outs and sell seats in "executive briefings" or cobranded reports for big $$$...

I suppose I should lighten up on Gartner - they do serve a purpose: they make people want to spend inordinate ammounts of money on trendy software and therefore keep a lot of us slashdot types employed.

$G

Hope is not enough...

[gesualdo]

> Let's hope Senators Hollings and Berman are paying attention.

Of course, if You really cared about this issue, You'd not sit only at home and hope that politicians listen, but You'd get out there and support those who are fighting for You by joining the EFF.

Fight back!

Why I haven't been buying CD's

[Slashdolt]

1. Too costly
2. I can get (sometimes) lower quality stuff from free via P2P.
3. I'm afraid that it will be crippled

Combine #1 and #3 and #2 is the only choice left for me.

Some business models are just not meant to survive forever. The Recording Industry should have begun to realize this 4 or 5 years ago, when MP3's first began to become popular, but instead they missed the boat, and decided to fight anyone that got on the boat. Hurt your consumers. Hurt your musicians. Given the fact that many people see the Recording Industry as dishonest (anyone remember the fact that they were recently found guilty of price fixing?), it's no wonder why we don't feel the least bit guilty about downloading from Kazaa, Morpheus, etc.

Nevertheless, most people prefer to be honest, overall. If the music industry starts selling new MP3 songs for $1/song and old ones for $0.25/song, they would likely see their profits higher than ever before, and kazaa would simply become a fringe group of people.

Re:Why I haven't been buying CD's

[Chops]

If the music industry starts selling new MP3 songs for $1/song and old ones for $0.25/song, they would likely see their profits higher than ever before, and kazaa would simply become a fringe group of people.

You should check out emusic, if you haven't. I haven't tried their service (since they won't accept payment by check), but it looks pretty solid: $15/month for all you can download from a half-decent catalog.

Two words for you!

[toupsie]

For those out there (RIAA, MPAA, congress) that believe people refuse to pay for something they could otherwise get for free, I have but two words:BOTTLED WATER

LEAD PIPES!

Come to NYC and drink the tap water that has been sitting in 100 year old lead pipes before it comes out of your faucet. You will LOVE bottled water. Plus, you actually don't get free water unless you are sucking up the scummy lake or river water filled with parasites. Tap water is paid for by taxes. No matter what, "There ain't no such thing as a free lunch."

Re:Two words for you!

[TonyZahn]

And here my friend, you've hit the nail on the head. Mod this guy up, please.

The only way to get someone to pay for something they could otherwise get for free is to make the non-free product have some kind of percieved value.

People pay for bottled water because ther percieve it to be of better quality (cleaner) than regular tap water. People still by CDs because they have a better audio quality than MP3s. The RIAA would have much better success if they spent time increasing the quality/cost ratio of their products than they will by adding security features/ Digital Restrictions Management / etc to their products. If I could by a high-quality 5.1 audio disc (maybe audio DVD) for $10/album, I'd choose that over the MP3s any time. But if they try to throw a bunch of convoluted crap on the disc so it won't play on my PC/Mac/[insert favorite device here], then I want nothing to do with it.

Re:Two words for you!

[toupsie]

Don't be too surprised if the bottled water in your region actually is New York tap water. Where do you think the water in the bottles comes from? A natural spring somewhere? Haha!

I drink the stuff which if spelled backwards is Naive. I am snotty kind of bottled water drinker.

Re:Two words for you!

[toupsie]

CHLORINE

Gross! You might as well drink out of your swimming pool. I don't feel stupid when I buy bottled water. Hell when I was in Las Vegas, I went to an oxygen bar! I bought freakin' air, and it was good compared to NYC! Gives you a nice little head buzz without the stuporifying effects.

Re:Two words for you!

[Amazing Quantum Man]

Get a nice clear glass and pour yourself a glass of tap water in southern California. It will be a nice milky white colour, but if you let it sit long enough it will clear.

That's aeration, not chlorine. However, there is definitely an aftertaste, but it may depend on your plumbing.

Re:Two words for you!

[Kevin Stevens]

Im not sure where you come from, but I dont pay a water tax. But... I do pay a water bill. As my physics teachers used to state it... the price of water per gallon out of the tap is than the price of any bottled water. Even the store brand bottled water costs about 79 cents a gallon, whereas a gallon of tap water at my house costs a fraction of a cent.

Re:Two words for you!

[toupsie]

I never said a word about tap water. I was making a point because water is the most abundant resource on Earth (other than gases in the Atmosphere, of course).

And how much of it is potable? Most of the water on Planet Earth is salt water not fresh water. I think you are way off on your comparison.

Re:Two words for you!

[subsolar2]

LEAD PIPES!

Come to NYC and drink the tap water that has been sitting in 100 year old lead pipes before it comes out of your faucet. You will LOVE bottled water. Plus, you actually don't get free water unless you are sucking up the scummy lake or river water filled with parasites. Tap water is paid for by taxes. No matter what, "There ain't no such thing as a free lunch."

Actually 100 year old lead pipes should be pretty safe since they will have a nice coating of minerals on the inside and should not leach lead into the water unlike newer soldered copper piples from a couple decades ago that contain lead in the solder.

I do agree that municipal water leaves much to be desired since it's quite often clorinated/ozoned to kill any critters in it and may have flourine added to give people nice healthy teeth. Bottled water does taste much better, but if you have a filter for the tap water it's just as good.

subsolar

Re:Two words for you!

[Reziac]

Actually, several years ago NYC's water was tested as part of a nationwide ranking for major cities, and NYC tap water was rated among the top ten for purity and flavour. (Ditto for Los Angeles. Here's a funny for you: last I heard, Sparkletts brand bottled water comes out of L.A. city taps.)

As to who pays for tap water, in most cities you get a water bill, with charges depending on how much you use. New water plants *may* be paid for via bond issues, which are indeed *ultimately* funded by taxes. But typically, taxes do not pay for day to day operations.

BTW you city folk don't know how cheap you've got it. I've got a private well, which I own outright, and I get a $50 to $100 power bill every month as the cost of operating a deep-well pump.

Re:Two words for you!

[Reziac]

I'd guess it's mostly private plumbing. Frex in North Hollywood, I've noticed that if I let the water run a while, it tastes a whole lot better.

This is in stark contrast to lousy-sounding music, which hurts your ears worse the longer you run it.

Re:Two words for you!

[adolf]

Sounds like my small-ish 2-bedroom apartment.

That the landlord pays the municipal water bill for the building doesn't matter - my electric bill is also $50-100.

That pump you run to suck fluid out of the ground probably doesn't cost as much to operate as you might think...

[though, most of my cost is in operating a few very non-green PCs and other electronics that spend their entire life powered up, and cooling them with AC. But I'm betting that things will be near break-even status during the forthcoming Ohio winter, and that I'll make little (if any) use of the electric baseboard heaters here.]

Re:Two words for you!

[Reziac]

Actually, I know exactly how much it costs to run my well pump, because it's a 10HP (38 amp) 3-phase beast with its own electric meter and its own separate bill. It'll drop off some once I get enough ground cover re-established to self-shade the soil (an end to our 5 year drought would help too!!), but it's never going to be cheap. I'm seriously considering the windmill route for power. Guy down the road from me did that and is now selling surplus electricity back to SoCalEdison. Of course, it costs $20k up front, even tho you get half back in rebates, and if you thought PC fans were noisy...!!

My PCs could all do green, but I don't let them power down anything but the monitor, because daily temperature changes here in the desert are typically a 30 degree swing even indoors, and that means a cold HD is going to have to warm up from near dew point ... better if they're not stressed that way on a daily basis. The two that run all the time cost about $5 and $10 per month, and that's with our ridiculous Calif. electric rates that are now 3x what the rest of the country pays (thanks so much, Mr.Davis -- my monthly bill to run the SAME stuff has gone from $8 to $35 in the past 3 years).

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

When will the RIAA learn

[Anonymous Coward]

that distributing mp3s on the net can help sales the same way that radio airtime helps increase an artist's exposure and boosts sales?

Case Study:
My mom comes by my appartment once in a while to say hi, and drop off a basket of fresh home baked muffins (thanks Mom). She hears, and likes the celtic songs playing on the stereo and asks who the artist is.

"It's a mix of artists I downloaded from the internet." I reply. Then burn a copy of the mp3s to a cd, and give it to her.

About a month later she has become hooked on a couple artists and has bought their cd's.

Variations of this scenario have played out a couple times and my mom has complained that every time I give her a CD of MP3s she ends up spending 100 bucks at A&B Sound.

I believe this is a common scenario. People download a bunch of songs and then every once in a while a particular artist strikes the right chord and they look for more music from that artist. The problem with the internet is that there is a lot of junk, and it is nearly impossible to download a whole album from one artist and get decent quality for every song. So many of us go out and by the CD.

Re:When will the RIAA learn

[embobo]

What happens when it becomes easy to get a whole CD from the Internet? You are relying on a technical accident. Once this problem is fixed, downloading mp3s isn't like airtime. If you hear a song you like, you download the rest of the CD. What would be your view then?

Re:When will the RIAA learn

[jedidiah]

Then I think the demarcation line would be cluelessness. Those of us with an elightened sense of self-interest would pay, even if it meant that we were a small proportion of those benefiting. Those with no clue may very well choose never to pay.

This may be what the RIAA is really afraid of. They don't want the contientious consumer driving the market. The net will destroy their bubblegum pop scam.

Re:When will the RIAA learn

[Sylver Dragon]

What happens when it becomes easy to get a whole CD from the Internet? You are relying on a technical accident. Once this problem is fixed, downloading mp3s isn't like airtime. If you hear a song you like, you download the rest of the CD. What would be your view then?

Hopefully, this "accident" will be fixed by the record labels making their music available in a good downloadable format, for which they charge a fee. By good, I mean a non-crippled, non-time limited format. Then its just a matter of the fee being reasonable. Reasonable will probably be defined as what the market will bear. In the end, there will still be piracy, with the ease and realative amnominty of the web, that is a feature that is, very likely, here to stay.
Of course, the above is a rather utopian solution, not likely to be implemented. To begin with, since the record labels are so caught up on stopping piracy, they are not likely to relase the new hit singles in a good downloadable format. Second, between competition, and possible anti-trust violations (as if the RIAA isn't one), there will be no convient, single, source from which to get music. Next, the price would have to be too low for the labels to want. Since, in my solution, they would allow me to buy just the one or two tracks that I really want, they would not be able to charge me for foisting the other crap on me.
In my opinion there are really just two possible outcomes from this:
1. The government props up the music industry, and maintains the status quo.

2. We spend the next few years watching the slow and painful death of the music industry as we know it.

The music industry cannot survive as it currently is, free advertising or not, as bandwidth gets cheaper and the tech ability of the population grows, more people are going to download music. It may not be hurting much now, but in the end it will cut into the bottom line for most labels. Without some sort of artificial prop, and no shift in business model, the current large companies will begin finding it harder to make a profit. They will either resort to incresing prices, or changing distribution models (e.g. crippled CDs). Either of these actions will further alienate customers, and drive them to piracy, driving the labels profits down further, and starting the cycle again.
Unless they figure out a way to adapt they are stuck relying on a government prop, thus the DMCA, CDPBTA, etc. And even that will probably exist only as a stop-gap, eventually it will be removed. In the end the labels are going to have to compete against the p2p networks, both by getting them shut down, and by offering an alternative to them that is worth paying for. Is this right, should a company have to compete against piracy? No, but our world does not always operate on the pricipals of what is right or wrong, sometimes in the game of life, you are dealt a shit hand.

Me.

[_xeno_]

Okay, who on Earth thinks that they should "backup audio cds"?

I do.

Really. I own two collector's editions of some very obscure music and I'd much rather play the backups than the original disks. So I make exact backups of them and then safely put the originals away.

I don't give them away to friends, I don't share them online through a P2P service, I don't do anything like that. I make a copy for the car and that's that. I want to keep the originals nice and safe; I use a copy for the car and Ogg for the computer.

When I buy a video game that requires me to use the CD, I try and use a copy as well, since I'd much rather risk accidently destroying a copy of my Warcraft III Collector's Edition (yeah, I know, Vivendi=Evil - quiet) then the original disk itself.

If I can figure out how to make a copy of UT2003 I'd do it to so I can let the original disks sit out of harms way (especially with the stupid "must have CD in the drive" shenanigans that often have disks out on top of the case during the burn of another disk or the install of something else - the joys of being a software developer under Windows - *sigh*).

Copy prohibition is only annoying for the legitimate purchases of content. The developers for UT2003 understood that and have admitted it in interviews. It's too bad that the publishing houses haven't figured that out yet and that I'm forced to have the stupid CD in my computer just so UT2003 can be convinced that even with a valid CD key I'm not some evil pirate.

When I buy music, I want to make an Ogg on my computer and a copy for my car. I then leave the disk safely away for potential future re-ripping and encoding to Ogg2 or the next great codec.

When my Dad buys a CD, he uses Roxio Easy-CD Creator to encode it to MP3 and then makes mixes of them for his car. My mother also encodes every CD she wants for easy access (although I don't know exactly what program she uses).

But notice that in these cases, we all legitamitely have the CD! I bought my copy of UT2003 and would be much obliged if Atari would trust me enough to use the game without the CD in the drive.

I have yet to see any of these restrictions doing anything to harm pirates. It just harms the honest consumer. I still buy CDs (a full four this year - and I haven't illegally downloaded anything else - and of those four, only two were through RIAA members) and support the companies that make games I like to play. But I still see the tracks available online, and know people who make copies of "copy protected" CDs simply to prove it's possible. And I'll bet all the real pirates of content and still happily selling their illegal $2 CDs out on the black market, laughing at means that only serve to force the honest user to either spend more money on additional CDs or give up functionality they've come to expect from their computers.

It annoys me.

Re:Me.

[Kintanon]

Really. I own two collector's editions of some very obscure music and I'd much rather play the backups than the original disks. So I make exact backups of them and then safely put the originals away.

I also own some rare expensive CDs, purchased limited edition, numbered, and the CD inserts autographed from a band called Grey Eye Glances. I spent 150$ to get 3 cds because I REALLY liked the band. I'm CERTAINLY not going to leave those CDs where they can be stepped on or broken, or even touched by other people. Because I don't want them to be destroyed, because they aren't replaceable.
So I rip them to mp3, put the originals in box in my closet, and I'm happy. And the the RIAA members can each come and personally perform oral sex on me if they want me to stop.

Kintanon

Just a question...

[gillbates]

Why should the artist, who performs a song once, get paid every time someone wants to hear that song? They expend no additional effort regardless of how many times a CD is copied or their music is played.

Consider programming, for example. Most programmers are paid to produce something, and very few, if any, receive royalties every time their programs are run. Why should it be any different for "artists" - who like programmers, are creative, but considerable better compensated considering the actual amount of work they do.

Notice that I'm not saying that performers shouldn't be compensated, but rather that they aren't entitled to be compensated for doing nothing. I have no problem with paying to see an artist performing live, because in that case, they are actually working. But how am I depriving an artist of their "fair share" if I copy a CD that I wouldn't have paid for in the first place? What if I don't buy CD's, but rather just listen to the radio? Am I stealing then? (I enjoy the music, but I didn't pay for it!) What's the difference?

What it comes down to is plain and simple greed. The record companies and artists want to be compensated for doing nothing.

I'm not saying that a musician's life isn't hard, but no one forced these people to become musicians. A career in music is not an entitlement. If you can't make a living as a musician, actually performing live, then maybe you shouldn't be in the business.

Re:Just a question...

[jgerman]

Wow, I never actually thought about the programmer angle. Which is odd, because I'm a software engineer, which I guess makes me biased, but that is a good analogy. Although, as much as I dislike the major labels, I wouldn't say they get compensated for doing nothing, they do produce and fund the cd's that are bought. They shouldn't however be able to change laws and take away right just to support their business model.

Re:Just a question...

[CdotZinger]

1) If you think artists are "better compensated" for their work than programmers are, you must not know any artists or programmers. The statement is so wrong it's irrefutable--you should start a religion. But, an example: I'm an "artist." I write books, and make music for films. That's my job. And I make more money than anyone I know--except my friends who are programmers. My hourly wage for writing a book, I've calculated, runs about $2.20 US. Dollars. Two of them, and twenty cents. Years of work for a few thousand dollars--the high life indeed. (In case you don't like the analogy: I'm also in a band that's "critically acclaimed" but not famous; we lose money every time we even think about music.) My most successful programmer friend guesses he makes about $200 US per hour. He "guesses" that because he works so little and makes so much, he can't stop laughing long enough to bust out his calculator. Neither of us are typical, I'm sure, but there's more of him and me than there are of Britney Spears and RMS. Still, explain to me in detail how sickeningly overpaid and lazy I am, please.

2) Royalties exist so that artists can make whatever they want, and if people buy it, they can get paid for having worked--just like telemarketers and strippers. Ideally, this takes artistic decisions out of the hands of patrons and media corps--for artists willing to risk being utterly destitute should their work not sell--and puts them the hands of...whoever. Isn't that neat? It's, like, an almost-ideal version of capitalism or something.

(As for the whole "playing live" argument: Movies, paintings, books, and irreproducible studio-created music all exist; should they not? Because that's all "doing nothing," right? DVDs, reproductions of paintings, books, and records are already cheap, because they're easy to make once all the work is done. Like any other manufactured good is. I mean, should Ferraris cost $1000 each? Because all the "real work" was done before the first one went off the assembly line, and those greedy car-designing bastards expect you to spend a hundred grand on a pile of scrap-metal while they're off on vacation--right? The nerve.)

3) Everything you said above is a justification for your being a cheap and envious person. I admit I probably have much better luck with the art-hotties than you do, but you're rather too rabid about all this, don't you think? You're spitting bold tags all over the screen. Sigmund Freud wrote some books you should probably read. And you can steal them without guilt--dead men collect no royalties.

Re:Just a question...

[ComputerSlicer23]

I'm a programmer, you want my copyrighted works, you get them on my terms. If my license is the GPL, copy and give it to whomever you wish, just include the source.

When I'm selling you a CD, and the terms of the agreement are, you don't get to give it to anyone else, then don't be surprised if I sue if you give it to people in violation of the contratual agreement. Even if they never would have paid me originally, they are not entitled to a free copy just because they won't agree to pay me. The ability to listen to music conveniently is not an entitlement. If I work selling my software out correctly, you will pay me for that CD, and I never have to work again if I can find enough people like you who will pay for it, and that's just fine in the USA. It's capitalism at work.

If you don't like the terms of the agreement, don't sign the contract. They have copyright for years. You have fair use, however, fair use isn't giving to anybody you want to. It might be giving it to your family. It is making a backup copy. It isn't giving to anybody who wouldn't willingly pay for it.

Kirby

Re:Arsenic in Your Tap Water

[Christopher Thomas]

As well as the water they supposedly get "for free" my friend they also get an amount of flouride, chlorine, and arsenic in the same "free" water.

I'll bite.

By what twist of logic do you put fluoride and chlorine in the same category as arsenic?

If you brush and floss religiously, good for you. The rest of us are thankful for fluoride in the water.

If you have perfect faith in the measures taken by bottled water companies to decontaminate any water they bottle, good for you. The rest of us are thankful for the trace amounts of chlorine in tap water.

Arsenic in the water is a problem. Lead from pipes and solder in the water is a problem. Additives that are there for a _good_ _reason_ aren't.

Its smoke

[ToasterTester]

The they all want to make copies for personal use, that isn't the real issue. It't the 95% of of those 82% who want make copies for others who didn't pay for the original material. If the rest of you had to make a living off royality per sale or use of your work instead of getting paid a salary or hourly you'd change your mind real quick.

Re:Its smoke

[toomz]

If the rest of you had to make a living off royality per sale or use of your work instead of getting paid a salary or hourly you'd change your mind real quick.

You've probably never seen a record contract. Artists generally get a fixed amount, and what they get from actual record sales is small.

And really, living off of royalties isn't much different from living off tips. Except generally the servers try to please their customers to earn them. Since, lets face it, the record companies are the ones getting the majority of our 'tips', they aren't doing much to earn them by pouring salt in our coffee.

Re:Its smoke

[jgerman]

Number one, prove the 95% figure. Number two, tough shit, that argument isn't nearly good enough. I have the right to copy my cd's for personal use, it shouldn't be taken away. I will not buy multiple cd's for use in the car, at work, or wherever. And I won't obey any law that penalizes me for the potential crimes others might commit.

Secondly, no one HAS to make a living off of royalty per sale. They choose that path, because of the potential for getting paid ridiculous amounts of cash for little work. We are under no obligation to give away our rights as consumers, as citizens, so that others get what is essentially a free ride.

Re:Its smoke

[ToasterTester]

I've seen many recording contract I was in the business for many years. Most groups/artist don't make much money off recording contracts unless they are huge. In my day the contract were written so the artist didn't make money until the record companies cost were paid back. Then the money trickled to the artist. If groups albums weren't didn't sell enough to payback costs then they were ususally dropped. If a group was making enough to payback cost they were kept around. Like Fleetwood Mac was around for years and years before "making it". They were a blue turn rock band who sold enough the record company didn't drop them. Years later after Stevie and Lindsey join they became a mega group. Most artish make their money doing concerts. Except that is dwinding now too. The audence today want such extravagant shows that touring isn't much of a money maker. Hense why most large tours are sponcered these days by beer companies and such. Bottom line the whole industry is fucked up and why were stuck with so much formula music.

In Other News:

[tunabomber]

Madison, WI (10/20/03) -

A local Best Buy retailer was inundated with a crowd of screaming teenagers and adults who couldn't wait to get their hands on a new CD containing the latest in digital restrictions management technology.

"It's so amazing how far music has come in the last 5 decades.", said 18-year-old Tricia James, clutching her copy of the new CD, a reissue of Three Dog Night's 1970 release, Naturally.

"It's always the consumers who drive initiatives like this.", commente Hilary Rosen, chairperson of the RIAA,at a press conference this Wednesday. "Our customers demand stringent limitations that prevent freeloaders from getting out of paying for another CD if their original store-bought CD becomes too scratched to play, and we deliver them. It adds value to our product."

"And this is just the tip of the iceberg", interjected the MPAA chairman, Jack Valenti. "This same technology can be applied to television, food, and even movies. I can't believe that in the 100-or-so years film has been around, theater operators didn't realize that people have TWO eyes, effectively giving them two identical copies of the same movie, one of which isn't being paid for. We are developing a simple, fair solution for this: either the theater patron will pay double the normal price of a movie, or they will be forced to wear a pirate-like eye patch."

"But aren't pirates the people you are trying to get rid of?" inquired a skeptic reporter from the Philadelphia Observer. Hilary Rosen quickly and conclusively answered this one by saying "Ha ha, yeah, I guess that's a little ironic isn't it? Yaarrgh, maytee!".

However the teenagers at the Grassy Park Best Buy aren't quite THAT optimistic. "Eye patches? I mean I'm all for some more rights management, but it'll be som endeaver to pull it off" said an unsure 15-year-old named Brian Coqueville. "Maybe if they start putting cool corporate logos on the patches, I'll be interested."

Jill Holmsworth, 21 still too giddy after the purchase of her new crippled disc to talk about anything else. "It's like almost an S&M thing for me. You no, like when someone ties you up and you're like No! No more! but deep down inside you love that stable,predictable feeling that the restraints give you. DRM is just like that, only they're DIGITAL restrictions, which are like ten times as good!"

Analogue!!!

[djkitsch]

I know this is the digital age and all, but as I think someone pointed out above (albeit rather convoulutedly), 99% of the time you can't tell the difference between an analogue and a digital copy.

Only difference being, rip the CD on "Analogue Input" mode. Easy! If everyone did this instead of getting pissed about it, the RIAA would possibly get bored and wander off...and maybe design CDs glued into the jewel case or something.

A common legal logical fallacy

[sielwolf]

Remember that most criminal law is built upon that x-percent minority that would be out there doing vile things if the law wasn't in place. So citing examples of Good Citizens is meaningless. Otherwise I'd be walking around with my full auto Steyr Maddi AK-47.

Another important thing: you have to show definitive proof to the extent the new prohibition will work. On the fully automatic firearm ban you can say that outside a few extreme cases, it has worked pretty damn well in restricting the weapons from criminals. Harris and Klebold didn't have them.

But then compare that to the prohibition on alcohol: a law that was almost flagrantly disregarded by most people.

Now you have to show will [fill in the name of CD copyright protection law here] will either be like the former or the latter. Laws need to be effective and constructive. People won't follow the law just because it was done with good intentions.

(Of course you could say the firearm law isn't even that useful. But then you get into a question of what is effective law and what isn't. Given enough modivation a person can break any prohbition.)

I want to see the questions

[Triv]

First thing you learn in advertising is how you ask a question is just as important as the derived statistic. I want to know if they asked "do you think you should be able to copy a CD for yourself" (relatively neutral), "Do you think copying a CD should be allowed, as it is protected by US copywright law" (weighted for) or "do you think stealing music is wrong" (weighted against). I'd wager good money on the second. It's all about the quality of the questions, not the merit of the issue. 'Tho it's good to see we can throw meaningless numbers around just as much as the other guys.

Triv

World wide war on media ownership

[Jouni]

Regardless of what legistlation is passed in the US, all other countries in the world have to deal with the same issues. Some of them will follow an example set by the US, some will follow the rules of the marketplace, but there will be countries where consumer's options will be severely limited.

This kind of copy-protection schemes are starting to emerge in Europe as well; just yesterday I saw a CD by Ian Van Dahl clearly marked as non-playable on PCs and Macs. I didn't buy the particular CD to test the validity of these claims, but that's down to personal choice rather than a market trend. I do not know whether the sales of the record have been impaired in any way.

Funny, though; the fact that it's unplayable in PCs and Macs is not explained in any way. It is left almost as an anomaly with the CD, with no symbol of value that would express increased protection, value or proof of originality. All it has is a little black box stating the obvious problem.

I imagine something like a "original audio recording - for stereo equipment only" holographic label or something a bit more upbeat could have given a better message to the consumers. On the other hand maybe we should be glad they didn't think of this?

Jouni

Sig

[moc.tfosorcimgllib]

> I want to whack something with a sword, and set something on fire. Does that make me a bad person?

38% of people polled said "no".

Nope, you're spewing the smoke.

[robkill]

As it is, the songwriter royalty system is based almost entirely on radio airplay "surveys". Voting rights in ASCAP and BMI are allocated based on royalties received, and as part of the membership agreement, artist agree not to challenge the system for determining royalties, further empowering the "haves" and disenfranchising the "have-nots". Add that to the creative accounting used by the record companies to recoup their advances from the artist royalties, and most artists never receive a royalty check. Artist royalties are the RIAA's smokescreen. The RIAA wants to maintain a tight control on the distribution of music, and maintain their power base.

Re:Nope, you're spewing the smoke.

[ToasterTester]

You are forgetting there are more than just songwritter royalies, there are the mechanicans on use. Bottom line these people deserve their money. If you ticked at the business side fine, but just make sure the musicians and songwriters get their royalies.

Copy Protected CD - Just Bought One - It sucked

[biffnix]

Just bout the new Donnas CD (Spend The Night) from Amazon.com. Pre-ordered it, even! And when it arrived, I found it would not even fire up in my Dell 8100 with a CD-RW drive! I wasted the money! What really sucks is that there was NO WAY for me to tell it was copy-protected BEFORE I ordered it. Otherwise, I simply wouldn't have bought it. The CD played ok on someone else's computer with no CD-RW, but on MY laptop, it simply wouldn't even run. Couldn't get it to play at all.

I'm returning it now for a refund, but I'm out the shipping charge. So, screw Atlantic records for perpetrating this crap on me as a consumer. I'm really tempted to rip the tracks using Audiograbber (which reads the copy-protected CD's audio tracks just fine, thank you very much!) and distribute them just out of spite. I spit on such tactics - pah!

A disgruntled customer,

Joe G.
Bishop, CA

Re:Copy Protected CD - Just Bought One - It sucked

[Shelled]

Thanks for the Donnas info. I downloaded it from Usenet and, as often happens, was going to buy it after sampling. Won't happen now.

Voting

[dcavanaugh]

"I have already voted, several times..."

RIAA has a tough time of counting the votes. If you buy crippleware, that counts as a "yes" vote for crippleware. If you don't buy crippleware, it's not really a "no" vote for crippleware, because any "no" votes are considered piracy.

An honest comparison would be the sales of otherwise identical albums, selling the crippled and uncrippled side-by-side for the same price. Until that happens, it's really like Saddam running against nobody in the Iraqi "election".

Re:Voting

[dcavanaugh]

In theory, that is true. But the crippleware industry has such a poor track record, RIAA will simply blame any decline in sales on pirates who must have broken the protection (true or not). After all, it's not like sales are declining because of crappy, overpriced music that nobody wants, right?

People don't matter

[program21]

It seems to be that more and more in today's society, people don't matter. MONEY matters. The RIAA is doing anything and everything it can to make more money, and politicians are taking 'contributions' (which to me consitutes bribery in many cases) to introduce/help push/vote for legislation that screws people while allowing companies to make more money.

I sure as hell do..

[EvilStein]

I've got some older CDs that are now out of print, and *VERY* difficult to find. I would rather not risk having the CD get lost/stolen/damaged/whatever and not being able to replace it.

Why doesn't the RIAA/whoever allow out-of-print material to be released to emusic.com or something? They're not going to make CDs of the material again, why not let someone actually enjoy it? Hrmph.

And in even MORE other news...

[Eric_Cartman_South_P]

100% of posts with percentages are Karma Whoring for +1 Funny.

Nice idiot bait

[siskbc]

Judging from the responses you got to that one, I would say you found the 18%!

For God's sake people, chlorinated tap water will likely contain fewer microbes than spring water, which comes out of the damned GROUND. If you're lucky. Know where aquafina and dasani come from? Chlorinated tap water with some salts added. So you're paying $2 a bottle for what you can get for (essentially) free. Morons.

If you have any questions about your tap water, you have the right to get the full results of the water testing, at http://www.epa.gov/safewater/dwinfo.htm

Here is a link to LA's water.
http://www.ladwp.com/water/quality/Annual/AnnRep01 /index.htm
And here's New York's:
http://www.ci.nyc.ny.us/html/dep/html/wsstate.html

I would say a small fraction of the country actually lives in an area where the water is actually hazardous. Both NY and LA were pretty damned good, actually. I've done tests on water, you'd be surprised how good tap water is in most places.

But congratulations on swallowing the FUD of the bottled water industry! I suppose you'll follow suit with the **AA.

Re:Nice idiot bait

[alexburke]

For God's sake people, chlorinated tap water will likely contain fewer microbes than spring water, which comes out of the damned GROUND. If you're lucky.

I call bullshit.

The house I've lived in for the last while is supplied by a well (yes, the water comes out of the "damned GROUND"). Every six months we send a sample of the water to a local lab to test for parasites and bacteria. It always comes back with zeroes across the board; zero E. Coli, zero coliform, etc. And this is without one drop of chlorine, bromine, or anything else.

Know where aquafina and dasani come from? Chlorinated tap water with some salts added. So you're paying $2 a bottle for what you can get for (essentially) free. Morons.

Take chlorinated tap water and run it through a heavy-duty reverse osmosis filter (among other filters) like Coca-Cola does with Dasani, and you end up with basically nothing but dihydrogen monoxide (pure water). Then they add some minerals back into the water to give it some taste (otherwise it would be like drinking distilled water, which actually isn't as good for you and also tastes yucky).

Chlorine and fluorine don't taste good, which is why many people in areas with heavily-treated (or high-iron-content, for example) water prefer bottled water to their tap water. Yes, it costs more, but it's more pleasant.

Now who's the moron?

Re:Nice idiot bait

[siskbc]

The house I've lived in for the last while is supplied by a well (yes, the water comes out of the "damned GROUND"). Every six months we send a sample of the water to a local lab to test for parasites and bacteria. It always comes back with zeroes across the board; zero E. Coli, zero coliform, etc. And this is without one drop of chlorine, bromine, or anything else.

First, if you like, call the EPA and ask them, on average, which has better water quality: wells or treated water. They will laugh at you. I stayed in a boarding house one summer (don't ask) and we couldn't drink the well water. It was infested with junk. If you have clean well water, good for you, but you have a sample size of 1.

Chlorine and fluorine don't taste good, which is why many people in areas with heavily-treated (or high-iron-content, for example) water prefer bottled water to their tap water. Yes, it costs more, but it's more pleasant.

"Pleasant" isn't exactly a public health issue. Also, no one really seemed to complain about the pleasantness of the water before companies like aquafina or whatever came around to try to expand their market with a perceived need. They told people they had a problem they hadn't noticed before, and like sheep, people shelled out serious amounts of cash. Marketing at its best.

As for health, I posted links to the EPA water quality site, check it out if you think I'm full of shit. Water quality is one of those things where public water supplies get a bad name because of the few really crappy systems, publicized by the incredibly lazy media that see big teaser headlines like "Is your water killing you? News at 11..." Again, check it. Neither LA nor NY had a lead, Arsenic, microbe, or really any other significant problem. I'm not going to check every system, but I think you'll be surprised after being fed FUD by the news and the bottled water companies.

If I was rich, I might drink bottled water. If the taste is really worth $2/bottle better than tap...seems a bit silly, but OK. But if you've swallowed the FUD that your only way to avoid certain death at the hands of your municipal water supply....well, that is truly sheep-like.

Now who's the moron?

Wow, someone needs a nap.

99% won't change behavior

[feldsteins]

77% of consumers believe they should be allowed to copy CD's for personal use

Yeah but 99% of consumers will be totally unaware whether the CD in their hot little hands at Best Buy is "crippled" or not. Nor will they care enough to put it back if you pointed out the warning label. It's one thing to ask a question and to have people agree in principle...and quite another to gague the extent to which such an agreement might influence actual behavior. My guess is that it won't influence it enough to deter the RIAA from making a good go of crippled CDs.

You're joking, right?

[ncc74656]

Let's hope Senators Hollings and Berman are paying attention.

They're too busy giving head to all of the Hollywood bigshots for that to happen...

Re: Berman

[Amazing Quantum Man]

Let's hope Senators Hollings and Berman are paying attention.

Since when did Senators Hollings and Berman give a shit about the concerns of the general public?

Berman's not a Senator, he's a Representative (Representative of what, remains to be seen).

They will eventually learn

[coene]

Either they will look at the poll result numbers, or they'll look at the sales figures as they drop.

People will catch on, and when they cant x-fer songs to their mp3 player, car, computer, whatever.. they'll just download them.

By doing this, the RIAA is essentially pushing their customers towards piracy.

Re:They will eventually learn

[adb]

Either they will look at the poll result numbers, or they'll look at the sales figures as they drop.

Bet you a dollar they'll just blame the dropping sales figures on the file-sharing method of the week.

Re:They will eventually learn

[coene]

Of course, but what they know is at fault and what they blame are two completely different things ;)

fixed that last bit for ya

[LUN!X]

As for your first question, I'd argue that artists aren't necessarily entitled to payment based on the grounds that I've got CD's with only one worthy track. In other words, I've been ripped off on all but one song.. should the artists get paid for 12 songs while contributing only one song to my music collection? Hell no. It's the same as the Microsoft tax that everybody cries about ... I buy one thing and end up paying for a lot more than what I wanted in the first place.
In order to more accurately reflect the reality of crippled media, and since pirates probably don't buy those CD's, I'll rephrase your second one as

"Do you believe that businesses should be allowed to distribute media that prevents legal copying and uses?"

Re: Berman

[rmohr02]

Berman's not a Senator, he's a Representative

Well, the submitter made that error.

Re:In a survey

[adb]

Irritatingly enough, it's 'standard usage to pluralize an initiali'sm with an apo'strophe. I 'still don't do it.

Re:In Other News: People like Wet Water

[EzInKy]

28% prefer theirs dehydrated.

Backup, anybody

[phorm]

Just the other day, I found that one of my audio CD's had made its way out of the case and rolled in beside the seat of my car. On its journey it seems to have acquired a rather nasty scar spanning the circular length of the CD.

Luckily, I have an MP3CD deck and had previously ripped all my audio CD's on to Mp3 disc.

If the original had been copy-crippled, my songs would have been lost. As it is, I retain an original copy (damaged or otherwise), and thus should be able to legally play my Mp3 disc to my heart's content.

The same theory applies to my software when I go out gaming, etc and usually use copies. If I accidentally leave a CD at a friend's, or a drunk somebody coats it in tequila, no problemo. The originals are all happily sitting on a carousel at home, unharmed, and again - quite legal.

Don't suspend the privileges of the whole due to the actions of the few - phorm

Hollings and Berman would listen

[fishbowl]

Hollings and Berman et al would listen if there were numbers like "77%" and "82%" of citizens voting. Well, they might listen, if they cared -- but they might not care because they'd be working honest jobs instead of being elected officials, get it?

CDs too easy to download? Easy solve for the RIAA

[Theaetetus]

What happens when it becomes easy to get a whole CD from the Internet? You are relying on a technical accident. Once this problem is fixed, downloading mp3s isn't like airtime. If you hear a song you like, you download the rest of the CD. What would be your view then?

So, if it's too easy to download an album, how about make the album bigger?
For example: I like quality in my CDs, so though I download music at 128kbps MP3s (or 192, if I can find it), if I find an album with three or more songs I like, I go out and buy it - then I get the higher quality, uncompressed 44.1kHz, 16-bit audio.

So, you ask, what happens when connection speeds are such that I can just download the entire uncompressed album?

Well, sure, that will happen, but how about the music industry stepping up to the challenge and offering more - more incentive to buy the full version? For instance, DVD-A (or SACD) with high resolution, multi-channel audio, and with some of the extra room on the album, maybe include a video or two. That would be worth purchase, 'cause either you have to compress the whole thing down horribly, or wait for a 9 GB download.

People will still strip off the audio and compress it to MP3s, or submix down to 2-channel and downconvert it, but the loss of quality becomes equivalent to the loss of quality with MP3s now... or even worse.

The RIAA wants me to buy more CDs rather than downloading them? Then, how about offer me something that makes it worthwhile for me to go purchase CDs.

-T

Yeah Right

[fire-eyes]

Let's hope Senators Hollings and Berman are paying attention.

Yeah right. The only thing they are listening to is lobbyists.

Um...

[Dthoma]

The reason why people buy DVDs even though they can't copy them is because there is little point in copying them for the average member of the public. You can't watch movies while you do something else as you can with music, so there's no need to really copy it; ever heard of a portable DVD player that lets you watch DVDs in high quality on the go? No, neither have I.

Re:Um...

[Rimbo]

"...ever heard of a portable DVD player that lets you watch DVDs in high quality on the go? No, neither have I."

http://www.portabledvdstore.com/
http://www.ama zon.com/exec/obidos/tg/browse/-/1725 21/ref=etk_ce_av__hp_ct_3_24/102-8605741-2697769
http://electronics.cnet.com/electronics/search/1,1 0126,0-6342366-1301-0,00.html?tag=srch&qt=portable +DVD+players&cn=Home+Video&ca=6342366

Not to mention every black-market electronics store in Shanghai and every electronics gadget shop in Times Square.

Re:Um...

[Glytch]

Yeah, walmart's go some crap, but there's an occasional gem. I picked up The Princess Bride, Army Of Darkness for six bucks each at the local one.

And if you've got some friends into MST3K, it's a good, cheap source of raw material. :)

Me too, from the other side of the coin

[Theaetetus]

Okay, who on Earth thinks that they should "backup audio cds"?

I likewise backup my audio CDs, but unlike the previous "Me", I don't have many collectors editions (though I do have some obscure stuff). However, I do have a car, and a CD player in my bedroom, my gym bag, my office at work, my office at home (though I have the computer, and so use MP3s there some of the time), etc., and I occasionally even go over to friends' houses and bring a CD for them to listen to (no, I don't let them borrow it nor do I let them copy it... rather, they listen, and if they like it, they go out and buy it).

For all of these uses, I want to use a backup copy of the CD. I've worn out CDs, I've had them scratched, I've known friends who've had them stolen from their cars, etc.

Unlike the previous poster, I'm not referring primarily to collectors editions or tough to find CDs - I do _every_ CD I own, as soon as I get them (we've got a high-speed duplicator at work), and the original only gets to spin up once before it gets tucked safely away. For me, it's simple economics - how many CDs have you had to replace through theft, loss, damage? Maybe 5, maybe 10? That's somewhere between 50-150 dollars (depending on price). However, backup copies of those are going to be roughly .15 each, maybe less (buying blanks in bulk), so I spend a dollar and save a hundred, in a completely legal and legitimate way.

I'm not a pirate, but I'm not willing to just throw money away either.

-T

So...

[Wakko Warner]

Your mom buys CDs...

Do you? (Your post doesn't mention you purchasing anything, just downloading celtic MP3s.)

- A.P.

The radio...

[unicorn]

question, is a VERY simple one.

ALL radio stations pay fee's for being on the air. Statistics are compiled on how often songs are played, and the copyright holders of those songs get cash money from the fee's that the stations pay. The money that the stations use for this, comes from advertisers, of course.

So radio is a paid medium. Just like TV. It just so happens that the payer, is not the consumer.

Shouldn't that be Insightful?

[Gerry Gleason]

Given the expected rate of thinking people, 77% and 82% is looking like close to everyone that occasionally has a thought or two.

Of course, they probably didn't survey anyone at the RIAA or MPAA, did they?

"Personal Backups"

[erik_fredricks]

Now, whenever I use that term, most people assume it's a nice way of saying "pirate copy." Thing is, many of my cds are imports or out-of-print obscurities, and I don't want to leave them in the car, where they get exposed to heat, scratching or possible theft. In fact, at $18USD a pop, I don't want to leave my regular cds in the car either, which is why I've got a holder with about 40 CDRs under my seat. It just makes life easier.

Since I'm already paying a hidden fee that the RIAA's been building in to the cost of cds since the PMRC hearings in the '80's, and I'm paying an extra tax built into the cost of the CDR discs thanks to RIAA lobbying, they're already gouging me twice for the privelege of doing something to which I'm legally entitled anyway.

With the advent of these "copy-proof" cds, I have yet to see any mention of either of those taxes going away. As far as I can tell, I'd still be paying both those premiums, even if every cd on the market was 100% copy-proof. God bless America.

In other news....

[Fnkmaster]

14% of the respondents did not care and the other 9% live in fear that they will be eaten by Hilary Rosen for music piracy.

In other news....

[Guppy06]

"Let's hope Senators Hollings and Berman are paying attention."

The same survey pointed out that this happened to be the same 77% that don't make large campaign contributions.

Absolutely

[CaptainZapp]

In addition I make a point asking the shop clerk if the CD's I purchase are crippled or corrupted (mind you, not copy-protected) in any form.

The point is not so much to reassure possible refunds if they are, but to raise their awareness that more and more customers are simply not willing to take this kind of shit.

Exist? Sure they do...

[tweakt]

ever heard of a portable DVD player that lets you watch DVDs in high quality on the go? No, neither have I.

Quality aside, they exist, but it's still different than say, an iPod. You won't typically put on a movie on low volume "in the background" or rip 20 DVDs and then shuffle play all the chapters.

Anyway... PortableDVDStore.com

Now, if I wanted to bring my movies to a party, etc, my originals are not allowed to leave my apartment. So a backup copy would be nice insurance if it goes missing or gets damaged.

We need a flyer to help educate the buyer...

[ClarkEvans]

Yeah but 99% of consumers will be totally unaware whether the CD in their hot little hands at Best Buy is "crippled" or not.

I was at BestBuy a month past to return a defective headset. Anyway, the fella in the line behind me had a "defective CD" that woudn't play in his girlfriend's computer. Anyway, I broke the news to him and explained that the CD was just "copy protected". So, he got to the front, the BestBuy person put it into a CD player and showed the customer that it did work -- and then stated that it isn't defective. An argument insued where the BestBuy person asserted that his girlfriend's computer was defective... after he lost the argument and BestBuy wouldn't take back the CD-ROM he asked me where I can get a list of CDs which are "Defective, but the store won't admit it". Anyway, I didn't know at the time but I told him to search. He said that he'd tell all his friends about the problem.

So, I think the behavior is going to change. This fella, I'm sure, told every one of his friends (starting about 1 min after he left the store and picked up his cell phone) about the problem. A few burned customers like this and we'll be OK.

The only problem is that he would not have known about the copy restriction if I hadn't told him.
So. How do we make this well known to the population? Is there a flyer that I can print out with a succinct description of the problem and a list of record labels / popular CDs which are crippled? This flyer can then be printed out by us geeks and put in poster boards, on cars out side of record stores, etc.

Re:CDs too easy to download? Easy solve for the RI

[Theaetetus]

Yes, but my point is that once you get up to needing to download 7+ GB of data for the DVD, then it starts taking so much of your time and bandwidth that it's worth more to you to just go out and buy the album.

Now, where an album can be compressed down to less than 50 MB, it's easier for most people to just download it.

And why can't I say that they should up the ante? Why shouldn't they offer more for my dollar as the technology improves? This is a free market - if they can't offer product that's valuable enough, then people aren't going to buy it.

-T